Concealed Carry Reciprocity is on the Move: Your Lawmakers Need to Hear from You NOW!

[TexasJohnBoy]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... /4477/text

I don’t think I see anything objectionable here... I also think that the last section on bump stocks will show that they are very seldom used in crimes...

[K.Mooneyham]

Thank you, Mr. Cotton, for the link and reply. Now I'm curious what Congressman Massie really has against the bill...

[RoyGBiv]

Watching live now on CSPAN.

Good thing I took my BP meds this morning, watching Clark (D-MA) speak on the bills. Her sky is definitely falling.

ETA: Not all speeches are on HR 38... This session Reps can be recognized for 5 minutes to speak on any topic/bill.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have read that Senator Schumer supports the "fix NICS" thing. Senator Schumer HATES law-abiding firearms owners, despises the 2nd Amendment, and would NEVER vote for ANY sort of bill that had anything positive to it concerning firearms. If he is indeed supporting that, then there MUST be something anti-2A and anti-firearms in it.

I give up.

Is there any untruth to what I stated?

Yes, there is. The bill will create national reciprocity. Show us the anti-gun provisions.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I saw a story by Congressman Massie stating that the two bills would be merged. Either the bill would pass and allow agencies to add names to NICS denials without adjudication, or the bill would not pass and thus national reciprocity would be killed. Either way the Democrats get something they want. I'm never quite sure what links are okay here because I know some sites don't have reputable programming, so I didn't want to post a link to the story. Is the merger NOT true? YOU I trust on this, if you say that isn't so.

There will be a vote to merge the bills. Both bills would pass the House as stand-alone bills and HR4477 would pass the Senate. However, HR38 as a stand-alone Bill would be killed by Senate Democrats by way of a filibuster and we'd have to start over. That would be much harder.

It is accurate to say that HR4477 gives Democrats something they want. That's why a combined bill will pass the Senate. It's also accurate to say that HR4477 gives Republicans the ability to tell their constituents that they addressed the Springhills Church shooting by trying to get states and agencies to comply with current law. HR4477 does not create one single new ground for disqualifying a person from possessing firearms. It does attempt to require states and agencies to report persons who are currently disqualified to the BATFE/FBI for inclusion in NICS. Again, it attempts to make states and agencies comply with current law. Arguing against that concept works to the advantage of the anti-gun crowd and empowers them to claim current laws don't work, so ban guns.

As for bump-stocks, I won't discuss that one in public.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thank you, Mr. Cotton, for the link and reply. Now I'm curious what Congressman Massie really has against the bill...

This is pure speculation, but what he is saying sounds like Dudley Brown/NAGR lies. He may be buying Dudley's crap and/or he may have received campaign donations from NAGR. Again, this is pure speculation on my part, but the false information sounds very familiar.

Chas.

[E.Marquez]

This is pure speculation, but what he is saying sounds like Dudley Brown/NAGR lies. He may be buying Dudley's crap and/or he may have received campaign donations from NAGR. Again, this is pure speculation on my part, but the false information sounds very familiar.

Chas.

Sir your speculation is better than most peoples "Facts"

I had a talking point by taking point compare written up where Rep Masseys claims were if not word for word, were duplicates in "facts" of the NAGR talking points.. I fat fingered the keyboard and lost the post. But for those that want to look...its an easy bit of research to see Rep Massey is being fed NAGR propaganda.

[thatguyoverthere]

I'm late to the game (as usual)! I have not read this entire thread, though I will over the next day or two, so these points have already been covered. But here are a couple of things that I notice in my limited reading so far.

Most of us (some of us?) decry giving special permissions to the "privileged classes", so why do we continue to do it?

SEC. 103. CERTAIN OFF-DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFI-
7 CERS AND RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OF-
8 FICERS ALLOWED TO CARRY A CONCEALED
9 FIREARM, AND DISCHARGE A FIREARM, IN A
10 SCHOOL ZONE.

The GFSZ Act prohibits even current but off-duty LEOs from carrying in a school zone. If we're going to fix that "oversight" in the GFSZ Act for them, why not fix it for "regular" licensed carriers at the same time?

And this from Section 104 (emphasis mine)

a Federal judge may
23 carry a concealed firearm in any State

Some people always talk about the power of the NRA lobby. Looks like these two groups must have some pretty powerful lobbies themselves.

As for HR 4477, I'm just now starting to look at it. One thought I have on it though: will this allow the SSA to again turn around and report to NICS as unqualified all those pensioners who need help with their finances? Or allow some other agency to doing something similar? Maybe I'll figure it out as I study further, but who decides what is or is not a disqualifier?

[RoyGBiv]

There will be a vote to merge the bills. Both bills would pass the House as stand-alone bills and HR4477 would pass the Senate. However, HR38 as a stand-alone Bill would be killed by Senate Democrats by way of a filibuster and we'd have to start over. That would be much harder.

Just a procedural comment to add... I believe this has already been accomplished via HR 645, yesterday.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... ll-actions

HR 645 is a procedural resolution that points to H. Rpt 115-440. 115-440 is where HR 38 was amended and replaced in its entirety with the committee reported (combined) HR 38 and HR 4477...
https://www.congress.gov/congressional- ... /440/1?r=7

(Emphasis mine)

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 38, the
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, under a closed rule.
The resolution provides one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution waives all points of
order against consideration of the bill. The resolution
provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-45 shall be
considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. The resolution waives all points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended. The resolution
provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/201 ... 115-45.xml

[RoyGBiv]

Debating live now on CSPAN

[montgomery]

I just read through https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... ll/38/text

I completely understand the ideology of concealed carry reciprocity, but if this bill passes, does this supercede State and local laws somehow? Will I be able to lawfully conceal carry a handgun with a 13 round magazine while in New York City as a result of this bill? Or would NY laws regarding magazine capacity still be in full effect? Any help to clarify would be great.

[RoyGBiv]

I just read through https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... ll/38/text

I completely understand the ideology of concealed carry reciprocity, but if this bill passes, does this supercede State and local laws somehow? Will I be able to lawfully conceal carry a handgun with a 13 round magazine while in New York City as a result of this bill? Or would NY laws regarding magazine capacity still be in full effect? Any help to clarify would be great.

As written currently, reciprocity would apply to "any handgun" and "any magazine".
However, the bill sponsor made some contrary statements on Fox a few days ago... For me, the question is still unresolved.

[RoyGBiv]

Debating live now on CSPAN

Apologies! The CSPAN feed is from Tuesday.
Hard to do work and listen to CSPAN at the same time..

[montgomery]

I just read through https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... ll/38/text

I completely understand the ideology of concealed carry reciprocity, but if this bill passes, does this supercede State and local laws somehow? Will I be able to lawfully conceal carry a handgun with a 13 round magazine while in New York City as a result of this bill? Or would NY laws regarding magazine capacity still be in full effect? Any help to clarify would be great.

As written currently, reciprocity would apply to "any handgun" and "any magazine".
However, the bill sponsor made some contrary statements on Fox a few days ago... For me, the question is still unresolved.

I would love to have true sea to shining sea concealed carry ability, but am struggling with how this squares with 10th amendment. Sure would be nice to see the fine print so-to-speak.

[2farnorth]

I suspect it will spend years tied up in Fed court. There are plenty of Clinton/Obama court appointees that will be willing to stay implementation if asked. I will not be the test case in those states that will fight it. You can bet that Shummer and cohorts already are planning the assault.

[RoyGBiv]

I just read through https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... ll/38/text

I completely understand the ideology of concealed carry reciprocity, but if this bill passes, does this supercede State and local laws somehow? Will I be able to lawfully conceal carry a handgun with a 13 round magazine while in New York City as a result of this bill? Or would NY laws regarding magazine capacity still be in full effect? Any help to clarify would be great.

As written currently, reciprocity would apply to "any handgun" and "any magazine".
However, the bill sponsor made some contrary statements on Fox a few days ago... For me, the question is still unresolved.

I would love to have true sea to shining sea concealed carry ability, but am struggling with how this squares with 10th amendment. Sure would be nice to see the fine print so-to-speak.

2nd Amendment?

Not intending to be flippant.... Seriously... My 2A rights (and yours) are DENIED by NY and CA and other places.
This is a Constitutional issue, not a States Rights issue. YMMV